Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT

348 ITR 109High Court2012#1986 most cited

What is Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Unrecoverable trade advances, including loans to joint venture partners or advances against land, are allowable as a business loss incidental to trade under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act when written off in the books of accounts. Such losses are treated akin to bad debts eligible for deduction.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT · Delhi High Court · 348 ITR 109 · unrecoverable trade advances · Section 37(1) · business loss deduction · bad debt · Section 36(1)(vii) · loan to joint venture partner · written off debt · commercial expediency · allowable business expenditure

Also reported as

11 Taxmann.com 14159 DTR 401

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)section 36(i)section 28(i)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)dividend distribution taxdisallowance u/s 14asection 36(1)section 36commercial expediencysection 28penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Lucky Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs DCIT, UG-28, Som Dutt Chambers-II, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFL1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.11.2013 of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi relating to ass…

Asian Theatres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 1505/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36

…written off in P & L account as "Loss on Pictures". This treatment is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 37 of the Act. In this regard, the assessee relies on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Mohan Meakins vs. CIT (348 ITR 109) (Delhi). As· detailed above, the impugned amounts represent unrecovered advances which do not represent the expenditure incurred for the films. Therefore, the provisions of Rule-9B of Income Tax Rules 1962, are not applicable to the appellant's case. Since these advances have not been recovered, they are treated as "bad debts" and claimed u/s 36…

M/S. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2479/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2479/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 4(1), Kolkata 8, B.B.D. Bag (East), Dalhousie Square, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 6748 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata Dated 16.11.2018 Passed In Case No.10418/Cit(A)-2/17-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2479/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata 8, B.B.D. Bag (East), Dalhousie Square, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 6748 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, JM This assessee…

M/S. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3796/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…allowed the claim of business loss when the amount was advanced for purchase of property, but, the property was not transferred and the amount was not repaid. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 109, he submitted that when the amount has been advanced in the course of business and the advance become irrecoverable even if the claim is not allowed as bad debt, the same can be allowed as business loss. It was held that the right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the pleas raised by him before the Departmental authorities or before…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4574/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…allowed the claim of business loss when the amount was advanced for purchase of property, but, the property was not transferred and the amount was not repaid. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 109, he submitted that when the amount has been advanced in the course of business and the advance become irrecoverable even if the claim is not allowed as bad debt, the same can be allowed as business loss. It was held that the right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the pleas raised by him before the Departmental authorities or before…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distri…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distri…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distri…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distri…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distri…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distri…

Sheetal G Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 36, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.1360/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Section 250

…was held as a current asset by the assessee and has been written off in books of accounts after a number of assessment years on the ground that the same had been irrecoverable. 13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 109 (Delhi HC) held as follows: “The assessee advanced sums to a supplier in order to obtain regular supplies. As the supplier failed to deliver the goods or to refund the advance, the assessee claimed the loss as a bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii). The AO rejected the claim though the CIT (A) allowed it. On appeal by the department, the Tribunal upheld the…

Talbros Motors P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7591/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/S Talbros Motors Pvt Ltd Vs. The I.T.O [Now Merged With Talbros International Ward 25(1) Pvt. Ltd., 1411 & 1412 Nicholson Road New Delhi Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi Pan: Aaact 0126 F [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 36(2)

…e write off does not come within the purview of section 36(2) of the Act, but at the same time, the same has to be considered as business loss u/s 28 of the Act. 19. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd 348 ITR 109 and the co-ordinate bench in the case of Lucky Goldstar Company Ltd 2018-TIOL-2154. Considering the facts of the case in totality, the write off may not be allowable as bad debt but the same is definitely allowable as business loss. I, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 20,96,958/-. Ground No. 2 is also allowe…

Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…advances are bonafide. 9. Appellant further relies on the judgement of:- i. CIT V Mysore Sugars Limited 46 ITR 649 ( Sc) ii. CIT v Abdul Razak & Co 136 ITR 825 ( Gui) 10. Further the facts of the case are identical to the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) wherein Hon. High Court has held as under:- 6. The facts of Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K) are similar to the instant case. In this case, the assessee was engaged in exploitation of forests, i.e., felling of trees, cutting them into sizeable logs, etc. In that case, the assessee had to engage various sub-contractors, who…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S Hiravati Marine Products (P) Ltd., Porbandar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…advances are bonafide. 9. Appellant further relies on the judgement of:- i. CIT V Mysore Sugars Limited 46 ITR 649 ( Sc) ii. CIT v Abdul Razak & Co 136 ITR 825 ( Gui) 10. Further the facts of the case are identical to the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) wherein Hon. High Court has held as under:- 6. The facts of Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K) are similar to the instant case. In this case, the assessee was engaged in exploitation of forests, i.e., felling of trees, cutting them into sizeable logs, etc. In that case, the assessee had to engage various sub-contractors, who…

Mahle Behr India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2935/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2935/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 28

…written off the said amount paid as irrecoverable. 7. The non recovery of the trade advance amounted to business loss allowable U/s. 28/37 of the Income Tax Act. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mohan Meakins Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 109 ( Copy placed) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. 46 ITR 649.” 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before us by raising the grounds as extracted above. 7. On hearing both the parties on this issue, we find that there is no dispute about requirement of the said blower motor…

Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1019/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 04/10/2018
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘Mh* Mh* Mh* अहमदाबाद । Mh* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ds le{kA LkoZJh oZJh oZJh olhe oZJh olhe olhe vgen olhe vgen vgen] ys[kk lnL; , vgen ] ys[kk lnL; , ] ys[kk lnL; ,oaoaoaoa Ek/Ek/Ek/Ek/kqferk ] ys[kk lnL; , kqferk kqferk jkW; kqferk jkW; jkW;] U; jkW; ] U; ] U;kfkfkfkf;d lnL; ] U; ;d lnL; ;d lnL; ds le{kA ;d lnL; ds le{kA ds le{kA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, बनाम/ A/2/236,…

Prl Comm of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad vs. M/S Nuzividu Swathi Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje Sakhar Udyog Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Modi
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…, such advances have close proximity with the business activity carried out by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering various decisions including the decisions rendered in the cases of Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. CIT reported as 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) and Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT reported as 25 taxmann.com 567 (Bom.): 349 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that the advances given by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure. We do not find any error in the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the impugned o…

Bayer Cropscience Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7619/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Bayer CropScience Addl. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, 1st Floor, Olympia, Range 10(3), Central Avenue, Vs. Mumbai Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 PAN: AAACB9651K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Bayer CropScience Income Tax- 10(3), Ltd., Room NO.451, 4th Floor, 1st Floor, Olympia, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Central Avenue, Maharshi Karve Road, Hiranandani Gardens, Mumbai - 40 Powai, Mum…